Transcript of "Ethical Implications Of Modifying Modern Mobile Computing ..."

1.
Ethical Implications Of
Modifying Modern Mobile
Computing Platforms
A Paper By Juston Western
ISMN 6776
Summer 2009
Auburn University

2.
Introduction
This paper examines the ethical implications of end-users modifying their
mobile computing platforms. The term “mobile computing platform” is used to
encompass the combination of hardware and software that constitutes modern
devices such as smartphones, personal media players, and mobile internet
devices.
While numerous platforms exist in the mobile computing space, this
discussion will focus on three specific operating systems:
 Apple iPhone OS
 Palm WebOS
 Google Android OS
The decision to examine these three platforms is justified by their relative current
and predicted future market share, extremely public levels of platform
modification, and a fair amount of existing technical documentation and media
coverage that provides a suitable body of knowledge for scrutiny in a research
paper context. Notable omissions from this paper include Microsoft’s Windows
Mobile OS, Nokia’s Symbian OS, and Research in Motion’s BlackBerry OS. While
these last three platforms are important and relevant entities in the mobile
computing marketplace, they do not meet the criteria outlined above.
1

3.
Overview of Three Modern Mobile Platforms
iPhone OS
Currently in its third major release, the iPhone OS is a UNIX-based
operating system that is primarily derived from Apple’s Mac OS X that the
company sells installed on its desktop and laptop computers. Applications for the
device are developed in the Objective-C programming language. Since its launch
in June 2007, the iPhone OS has become available on five hardware devices:
the original iPhone, the iPod Touch, the iPhone 3G, the second-generation iPod
Touch, and most recently the iPhone 3GS. As of June 2009, there are reportedly
40 million devices in circulation worldwide running this platform.1
WebOS
Originally announced in January 2009, Palm’s WebOS is a Linux-based
operating system. Developers for this platform can create applications using the
common web-development languages of JavaScript and HTML, although a
software development kit is not scheduled for release to the general public until
late summer 2009.2 Only one device currently commercially available runs the
WebOS: the Palm Pre. Since its release on June 6, 2009, the Palm Pre has
amassed a user base of 300,000 individuals, with between 50,000 and 100,000
3 4
of those purchasing the device during its launch weekend.
2

4.
Android OS
The Android OS began its life as a platform developed by startup company
Android Inc. However, in August 2005 the company was purchased by Google to
serve as the foundation for its mobile initiatives.5 Two years later, Google
announced that the Android OS would be released under the direction of the
Open Handset Alliance. This entity included 47 technology companies ranging
from Sprint to Motorola.6
At its core, the Android OS is a Linux-based system. Unlike the iPhone OS
or WebOS, the Android OS is unique in that it is open source, although there is
some disagreement about the validity of this claim since Google has retained
ownership of the Android software development kit.7 8 Applications for the
platform are written in JavaScript. Currently a single device in the United States
runs the Android OS, the T-Mobile G1, and it only recently surpassed the 1
million units sold mark, despite being available since October 2008.
Nevertheless, many Android-based devices are expected to launch during the fall
of 2009, and some projections estimate over 6 million Android OS devices will be
in use world-wide by the end of the year.9
Unlocking vs. Jailbreaking Explained
While Apple’s iPhone has garnered the majority of the media attention
surrounding unlocking and jailbreaking activities, the general concepts also apply
to devices running the WebOS or Android OS. In short, unlocking a device
3

5.
enables an individual to use it on a different cellular network than the one on
which it was originally intended to operate, whereas jailbreaking a device
enables a user to install third-party software on the device without restriction. A
more detailed analysis is below.
Unlocking
Any cellular phone or mobile internet device with cellular network
connectivity that runs one of these previously mentioned operating systems is
truthfully two computers in one. While both physically and conceptually it
appears to be a single device, inside there is one computer handling
communication with the cellular network and another computer handling most
everything else a user can do with the device.
The term “computer” is fairly precise here, since each has its own CPU,
memory, and operating system. As an over-simplified example, imagine a
walkie-talkie duct taped to a Palm Pilot. The walkie-talkie would be considered
the device’s baseband system, while the Palm Pilot would be the device’s host
system. In modern devices, the links between the two computers are admittedly
more elegant and functional than duct tape, but when it comes to modifying a
device, the baseband and host systems are similarly treated as separate entities.
For the purposes of unlocking, a user has to modify the baseband system in the
device.10
4

6.
There are two ways to modify the baseband system in a device. The first,
and more difficult of the two, is by opening up the device and physically making
modifications to the chip containing the baseband system. This was the method
employed during the first reported successful unlocking of the original iPhone in
August 2007.11
The second and more popular method is referred to as a software unlock.
This involves either replacing the software contained in the baseband system
with a version that does not contain a carrier lock or injecting code into the
existing software that effectively disables the carrier lock. In the case of devices
running the iPhone OS, these software unlock methods are developed by the
iPhone Dev Team, a group of anonymous hackers responsible for both unlock
and jailbreak tools. Such tools include Pwnage, QuickPwn, Yellowsn0w,
redsn0w, and most recently ultrasn0w.12
Jailbreaking
In order to run unofficial or unapproved third-party applications on these
mobile computing platforms, a user needs to jailbreak the device by modifying
the host system software. Depending on the tool used to accomplish the
jailbreak, the process could entail injecting code into the host system software
while it remains on the device, or alternatively extracting the host system
software to a computer to make the necessary modification and then
subsequently reloading the altered host system software back to the device.
5

7.
Once a device is jailbroken, the user can run non-digitally signed code, a
capability that was technically forbidden on stock devices. This allows the
installation of numerous third-party applications that independent software
developers create. These applications may have advanced capabilities or grant
the user administrative access to the device, allowing customization to both the
form and function of the system software. For example, after jailbreaking a
device, the user may enable the device’s camera to record video or change the
icons displayed in the user interface. These modifications would be forbidden or
otherwise disabled on a non-jailbroken device.13
Company Responses
For a company that creates a mobile computing platform, dealing with
customers who choose to unlock or jailbreak their devices represents a delicate
situation. One perspective is that such activities constitute a threat to the
company’s intellectual property or even represent copyright violations.
Alternatively, such a thriving developer community and interested user base can
contribute to increased device sales and ultimately a larger slice of the mobile
computing platform market.
Until early 2009, the creators of these three platforms remained largely
silent on the topics of unlocking and jailbreaking. However, in February 2009,
Apple chose to file a request with the United States Copyright Office to
specifically exclude jailbreaking activities from potential exemptions to the Digital
6

8.
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Such exemptions are considered every three
years, and include activities such as a school teacher presenting a copyrighted
video in the classroom. Without an exemption, that activity would be prohibited
under the language of the DMCA, but since it is exempted, such an activity is
legal.14
Apple’s request was not without provocation. Earlier in the year, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation filed its own motion to the Copyright Office for
jailbreaking activities to receive such an exemption under the DMCA.15 The final
decision from the Copyright Office is expected in October 2009.16
Google has taken a largely hands-off approach in the context of seeking
action against those users or developers who utilize or enable jailbreaking of the
Android OS platform. While Google has closed publicized exploits in the OS that
enabled jailbreaking in subsequent releases of Android, they have not taken a
public stance decrying those who jailbreak their devices.17
Palm appears to be taking a moderate approach somewhere in between
those displayed by Apple and Google. The firmware on Palm’s Pre smartphone
can be modified, or “flashed” by simply holding down the volume button when
the device is booting up.18 Further, a developer mode can be accessed on the
device by typing in a simple code, making a jailbreak trivial.19 Despite these
seemingly hacker-friendly platform decisions, Palm has also requested that a
webOS software development website not publish instructions on how to enable
7

9.
data-tethering on the device, which would allow the Pre to be used as a wireless
modem for an attached laptop.20 The implication seems to be that Palm will
allow some modifications to their platform by enthusiasts, but try to prevent
other such modifications.
Ethical Considerations
Why would a consumer wish to jailbreak or unlock a mobile computing
device? The answer to this question is perhaps the most telling as to whether
such activity is ethical.
In the case of unlocking, the answer seems to be less complex.
Individuals who unlock their device do so in order to use it on the cellular
network of their choice. Often this is a necessity since not all cellular phones are
available worldwide. For example, the iPhone is not offered for sale in China. If
a Chinese consumer wishes to use an iPhone in their native country, the only
option is to acquire an iPhone from another country and then unlock the device.
That same consumer may be perfectly willing to buy and use a carrier-locked
iPhone, but due to exclusive carrier agreements, they do not have that choice.
Similarly, an American consumer may wish to purchase an iPhone, but
lives in a rural community where AT&T (currently the exclusive carrier of the
device in the United States) service in unavailable. In this scenario, the user
only desires to utilize the device on the GSM cellular network available in their
8

10.
area. Based on this assessment, it would appear unlocking a device in order to
use it on another network does not constitute unethical behavior.
This evaluation also has solid legal grounding. In 2006, the United States
Copyright Office granted an exemption to the DMCA for cellular phone unlocking,
stating, “The underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner of the
handset is to allow the handset to do what it was manufactured to do – lawfully
connect to any carrier.21” However, these exemptions only last three years
before the Copyright Office must once again be petitioned for the exemption to
be reconsidered. The Electronic Frontier Foundation included a proposal to
continue such exemption as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking.10
The topic of jailbreaking is both ethically and legally murkier. From an
ethical perspective, the intent of the user engaged in the jailbreaking activity will
determine if the act is ethical. While many users jailbreak their devices to gain
additional functionality and install independently developed third-party
applications, other users do so in order to download and install pirated
commercial software that is legally available from official application distribution
channels, such as Apple’s iTunes App Store.22 In the later situation, the piracy
enabled by jailbreaking is unethical, although the mere jailbreaking of the device
itself does not seem to constitute unethical behavior.
Further complicating the ethical determination of jailbreaking are the
matters of customer service and product support. While jailbreaking a device
9

11.
typically voids its warranty, not all users are aware or mindful of such a risk. If
the device malfunctions after being jailbroken, is it ethical for the customer to
expect the company to support the modified platform either by repairs or
telephone support? The answer is likely “no,” although the device’s
manufacturer may be hesitant to refuse support for fear of negative publicity or
customer backlash.
From a legal standpoint, jailbreaking is currently neither explicitly
prohibited nor explicitly permitted. This is why both Apple and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation have petitioned the Copyright Office for consideration in the
2009 DMCA Rulemaking, albeit arguing opposing viewpoints. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation hopes to have jailbreaking given explicit exemption status,
effectively making such activity legal.23
Conclusion
While the legality of jailbreaking and unlocking will be settled for the next
three years as of October 2009, the ethical debate surrounding such activities
will likely continue for some time to come. As long as independent developers
perceive they can improve upon the software being offered by the companies
that make the devices, the jailbreaking community will continue to exist either
openly or underground. For their part, the companies will expectedly continue a
cat and mouse game with jailbreakers by way of patching exploits with each
subsequent release of their operating systems.
10

12.
This back and forth seems destined to benefit all users of mobile
computing devices in the long run. Despite considerable resources and intimate
working knowledge of their respective platforms, the companies cannot perfectly
gauge demand for all features nor predict all the ways in which their platforms
may be utilized. The jailbreaking community serves as a feature innovator,
incubator, and testing ground all rolled into one. The best features and
functionality will likely be assimilated into or duplicated inside of future official
releases of these mobile computing platforms. In the end, the technology
evolves both in spite of and because of all those who create.
11